Maine board’s executive session complied with state open meetings law
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has vacated a trial court’s ruling that a local school board’s executive session violated Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) and that certain notes taken during the session, and documents prepared for the session, are “public records” subject to public inspection. The supreme court agreed with the board’s contention that trial court erred because the executive session was conducted lawfully in accordance with the FOAA, and that the trial court had improperly ordered the release of the notes and the document. The dispute began when the Portland School Committee (board) voted to go into executive session with the stated purpose to “consult with counsel and consider the duties of central office staff with respect to the department’s financial management.” During the unrecorded session, board members questioned the superintendent, finance manager, human resources director, and the board’s general counsel. The board’s general counsel and two board members took notes. In addition, the superintendent presented a written memorandum on her management philosophy that she had prepared solely for the session. Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc. (Blethen) requested “all notes, transcripts, recordings, minutes or other documents reflecting the discussion during the meeting as well as any documents distributed to or by Committee members or Department staff during the meeting,” pursuant to the FOAA. The board denied the request. Blethen filed suit alleging the board’s action constituted denial of access to public proceedings and public records in violation of the FOAA. The trial court ruled that while some of the discussion during the executive session covered subjects permission under the FOAA, i.e. personnel matters, some of the discussion involved deliberations about the board’s budget, a subject not permissible under the FOAA. It also found that the superintendent’s memorandum and the board members’ notes from the session were public records under the FOAA. Finally, the trial court found portions of the general counsel’s notes were privileged but other portions were public records.
The supreme court agreed with the board that the trial had erred in finding that portions of the executive session violated the FOAA because they involved discussion of the budget. While it conceded that the evidence supported a finding that some questions were raised concerning the school district’s financial shortfall, a subject not appropriate for an executive session, it emphasized those questions were few, and of short duration, and not answered at the direction of the board’s general counsel. Instead, the high court found that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the overall purpose of the session was in compliance with the FOAA. Specifically, it found that all the witnesses testified “that a main purpose of the session was to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the senior staff of the School Committee, and that the focus of the meeting complied with that purpose.” It also pointed out that the notes corroborated that purpose. In addition, it found that a public discussion of staff personnel having fiscal management responsibilities in light of the unexpected financial shortfall “could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the reputation[s]” of those who would come under scrutiny, and, therefore, the board was justified in conducting the discussion in executive session. The supreme court also disagreed with the trial court’s construction of the statutory language in FOAA as prohibiting any discussion of financial matters in executive sessions. Having determined that the executive session was lawful, the high court concluded that the documents prepared for use during the session and the notes taken during the session were not subject to public disclosure.
Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc., No. 07-522 (Me. Apr. 24, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: The Clayton County school board, which is under intense scrutiny from the State of Georgia over accreditation problems and how it operates its school district, also is facing several allegations of open meeting violations by the state attorney general's office, which has ordered the board to respond to the allegations. See below.]
Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/8/08, By Megan Matteucci